Premier League clubs could be permitted to lose more than £20 million a year
under compromise financial fair-play proposals due to be voted on next
month.

The League has been grappling with demands from some of its member clubs to impose financial controls for over a year, but the contrasting positions and interests of its members has made agreement difficult.

There is now a consensus from around 15 of the 20 clubs that a system based on the Uefa principle of breaking even and restricting benefactor investment should be introduced. At a meeting next month the League hopes to secure the required majority of 14 clubs for measures that will be introduced next season.

Under the Uefa financial fair play rules, with which clubs in Europe already have to comply, benefactors are permitted to underwrite losses of up to €45 million (£37 million) over the three years to the end of the 2014-15 season. In the following three seasons the permitted losses reduce, with a view to clubs breaking even in the long term.

Those figures are considered restrictive for domestic competition, not least by the Premier League, which fears the rules could choke off the owner investment that has helped build the league as a global brand.

A compromise that would allow clubs to incur annual losses of around £20 million has been discussed, though there are some who would favour a higher number.

West Ham are understood to have suggested they would be happy with a figure as high as £40 million, though that may be considered too high by a majority.

It is also unlikely that the Premier League version of financial fair play will mean permitted losses reduce year-on-year. It is more likely that any agreement will be on a three-year cycle in line with broadcast deals.

The clubs are also considering placing a limit on the amount by which wages can increase year-on-year, a measure that some clubs want as a precondition for accepting the wider financial fair play rules.

At the other end of the spectrum Manchester City and Chelsea, whose huge losses have been underwritten by benefactors, have led opposition, alongside Aston Villa, West Bromwich Albion and Fulham. These clubs believe that the rules represent an unfair intervention into the free market on which the league’s success has been built.

In the middle are a group of clubs who fear the inflationary effect of benefactor spending elsewhere more than they care about putting off the next oligarch, and are seeking an excuse to turn down demands from players and agents when the next television deal kicks in.